Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Hollywood movies that are so ridiculous that the audience groans in unison. I just went to fast n Furious (I won tickets, wouldn't have bothered otherwise), and every single scene was so stupid; need to find a scientist in hiding? Don't worry we photographed him buying a newspaper in broad daylight on main street. The bad guys have guns with a user ID chip so people can't use their guns, except the activation chip is in the gloves so anyone can steal them, then it turns out the guns are on wifi so a girl on a laptop can switch off all weapons at will. A girl has a super virus in her, if time runs out she will die and infect the whole planet. How? Err, well its airborne so it will travel. So containment of the supervirus could be achieved by closing the window. We need to extract the virus from her within 24hrs, okay let's fly Moscow to Samoa which should take 19hrs of flying let alone the time to get a plane ready. Why Samoa? Well the Rock's brother, who he hasn't seen in 25 years is a motor mechanic, so obviously the perfect person to fix the advanced nano-tech sci-fi extraction unit. Well at least she can hide away while the extraction unit works? Nope, she will wear it like a backpack and be kept at the front lines because we need the bad guys to kidnap her again. The movie had some laughs and some big explosion, but I regret seeing it, even for free.
  3. Welcome @pkbutrfli! Stick around. I hope you'll find this a welcoming, rewarding place to be.
  4. pkbutrfli


    Thanks for the welcome. Pkbutrfli simply means preachers kid out of the cocoon. There are times I wonder if I’d have escaped a more loving denomination. A question with no answer. Today Trump has said he’s the second coming . I wonder just how many in my family had their heads explode. They’re probably all standing outside waiting to be raptured this very moment. What a great time to have joined this site.
  5. Luth-ifer: your understanding is flawed. Ex-c Chorus: tell us how our understanding is flawed. Luth-ifer: tell me what your understanding is first. Ex-c Chorus: tell us how our understanding is flawed. Luth-ifer: why should I answer vagaries? Ex-c Chorus: tell us the correct understanding, then. Luth-ifer: no, I asked you first.
  6. I'm scared of death because I love life and don't want it to end. I'm also scared of missing out on seeing my kids grow up. I don't think there is anything after I go, which is sad but something which I have no control over... Unless my dream of having my brain implanted into a robot comes true. Meeting god: "Dude, grab a beer and pull up a chair, this is gonna take awhile..."
  7. Do you release she-bears on them? I've heard that is the just and righteous punishment for name calling...
  8. MOHO


    Hey @pkbutrfli (What in Sam Hell does that mean?) Gush, mushy. Yeah. That bugs me but it's when the get piousy and hollier-than-thoughy and "I get to direct your lifey" that pisses me no endy. Welcome to Ex-C and I hope to read morry for youy. - MOHO (Mind Of His Owny)
  9. Today
  10. See above. PA begs the question, and boils down to "believe this book". For the final time, prove me wrong.
  11. Collectively, yes, you all have. You do so inadvertently but that leads to asking for clarification. How / why should I attempt to counter vagaries? I'm not asking about truth claims. "Faith" is not required to address PA which is the subject matter right now. There's no inherent "absurd truth claims" in PA being an approach.
  12. I've been in Nevada 30 years. It's a waterless place...but I decided to stay.
  13. See, this is how conversations die. Why should I explain my understanding to you before you explain yours to me? Why isn't it courteous for you to go first? Even here, you assume implicitly you're right and I'm wrong. If you are instruct me in the correct view, I should first describe my flawed views. Does that about cover it? But here's the really important thing: it's your faith that makes specific, strong, absurd truth claims. It's on you to defend these, not on me to explain my current understanding of them. Where I make claims, I'm happy to defend them. Why can't you do the same? And no, I have not seen it all and done it all. Not by a long stretch. But one thing I have seen before is a Christian who is actually willing to attempt to defend his or her faith. Just not in this thread.
  14. Well that's something for people to ponder. Who seems more deluded? 1) A guy that presupposes from the outset that a supernatural god has to be the reason the universe exists, without any way of substantiating the claim, and then logic leaps even further to conclude that out of the entire worlds selection of religions about gods, only one particular religion, and one particular interpretation of that religion is absolutely true and all else false? 2) A guy who openly points out where obvious errors exist in just about everything and honestly admits that when it comes to these ultimate questions, we're still seeking answers and don't actually posses any absolute truths on the subject matter? You allege that guy #2 is deluded beyond hope, without any credible evidence or possible way of substantiating the claim. For guy #2 to be deluded, guy #1 has to demonstrate "absolute truth." The claim is that guy #2 is deluded because he doesn't think there is absolute truth in this context, and that he's wrong and such absolute truth does in fact exist. DEMONSTRATE your claim please!!!!! Very hollow claim on your part without the supporting evidence. Again, and again. Hollow claims, no evidence to support your claims. Saying we're wrong and don't understand, failing to follow through and show us where and why we're wrong and to prove yourself. This is what you do with an open forum to witness, testify to the truth and / or argue on behalf of the god you presuppose and belief in?
  15. There's no error so far. You haven't countered me or any of the others here making the same assertion. You keep saying we're wrong, and then failing to demonstrate your assertion that we have it wrong: If you suggest that someone believe the bible, that's it. It all boils down to what we've outlined several times now. And you have no refutation so far. Saying that we just don't know or just don't understand is NOT a refutation. And yet, even that necessarily boils down to a foundation of "believe this book." A more refined rendition where the person has to penetrate layers of the said book in order to qualify as "really believing this book."
  16. Very good. What I think is fair and courteous, though, is to have a person explain to me how they understand a particular thing before I launch into my own. Why cover ground that's already been covered? But that's the premise here. You've seen it all; done it all; got the Tshirt AND the degree. Yet when pressed...mmmmm. I say this in light of the vast record of history that is available to us all.
  17. I'd hazard the guess that both Luth-ifer and christfuckems would say that it is not enough to "believe this book" per se. One must believe the correct interpretation of the correct translation of the book. This, despite neither of them being able to demonstrate which is correct or explain why.
  18. Yes, I understand that this is an argument that is commonly made, but it isn't a good one. It amounts to begging the question. The answer to the question "how do you know the Bible to be true" is "to know the Bible to be true, you must presuppose God", but not only that, you must also reason "correctly", whatever that means. I could easily assert that if you do everything "correctly" you'll arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is false, even with the presupposition of God. But I suppose that could be countered by saying that one's presupposition of God is flawed. It does seem to me though that you have to also presuppose the "correctness" of your reasoning, although I suppose that this could be seen as flowing from, or as an aspect of, the original presupposition. But in either case, you have now basically just presupposed the Bible's truth. Hence, "believe this book". The statements "The Christian God exists" and "The Bible is true" are roughly equivalent logically. One can't be true without the other. If the Christian God exists, then the Bible is true, otherwise it wouldn't be the Christian God that exists. And if the Bible is true, then the Christian God exists because the Bible makes that claim. But this means that to assume one of these statements is simply to assume the other. Again, "believe this book".
  19. It took me awhile. And I still study religion and philosophy to see what people have come up with down through the ages. The people who I think had it together the most were the stoics; Seneca and Epictetus were more devout than most christians. (At least in words; Seneca talked the talk but did not always walk the walk.) The trouble is that stoic philosophy is ultimately grounded in theism; the gods rule the universe and we are to be devout because we are part of their plan. On a more modern secular level, nihilism and existentialism are two sides of the same coin; there is no inherent purpose in life, so you are free to make your own. Some people evidently have the ability to find true satisfaction in a life like this; others live more like they are just playing solitaire in a prison cell. I can’t decide from one minute to the next. When all else fails, I just ask myself, does a tree need a reason to exist? Of course, all this is probably intellectualization as a defense mechanism on my part. Another kind of person might just plunge into life and enjoy it without thinking so much about it. There is even such a thing as atheist christianity; one can still go to church, fellowship with family and friends, and enjoy things like christmas and some of the teachings in the bible that are not so horrible, without the whole belief thing. (I have a dirty little secret: I still love christmas music, especially large choirs.) As Weezer said, there may be churches or other groups that you may feel comfortable in. When an unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and doesn’t find it. Then he says, ‘I will return into my house from which I came out,’ and when he has come back, he finds it EMPTY, swept, and put in order. Then he goes, and takes with himself seven other spirits more evil than he is, and they enter in and dwell there. The last state of that man becomes worse than the first. —Matthew 12:43-45
  20. The concept of heaven as I was taught was never appealing. It’s a place where some humanoid god is worshiped for eternity by drooling mindless masses - a humanoid god who doesn’t deserve to be worshipped even by those sorry masses. Hell included wonderful people like Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and Einstein. I’d much rather be in their company. If I get the opportunity to meet that humanoid god face to face I’d probably punch him. After the moment of death is a mystery. I like mysteries. Life would be terribly boring without them.
  21. Well, both my parents are pastors who tend towards presuppositionalism, so there's that... Like mwc, I'm not going to give you actual names of people I know who are presuppositionalists, but I know and have known quite a few. I am aware of what I'm speaking here. You seem to like very much to pretend as if no one but you has any inkling about, well, anything, but you don't seem inclined to actually present anything substantive in support of this pretense. If my claim that the arguments boil down to "believe this book (or else, as RNP would have it)" is incorrect then prove me wrong. Give me an argument which I can't reduce to that. Or don't, but then realize that if you keep talking you look pretty silly.
  22. Just not one that you are capable of demonstrating.
  23. On an unrelated note, I cannot find how to react to a post.
  24. "Asserted such..." Anyone can attempt to wade back through years of "assertion" and come up empty. I'm not asking for that. It is being implied that PA is instantly recognizable and has been addressed e.g. This is NOT "the essence" but that's where y'all congratulate yourselves and leave it thinking you've put it to rest.
  25. I tried having the "You should be looking forward to the end of the world" conversation with a Christian. He pretty much acted like any non-believer would. He thought I was nuts. lol
  26. What? Like name names from my past? That's a big ask for an online forum don't you think? I'll say that I've had teachers that asserted such beliefs and leave it at that. mwc
  1. Load more activity

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.